{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

        
User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • Regulated Industries
    • Research & Tech
    • Quality Improvement Tools
    • People Management
    • Metrology
    • Manufacturing
    • Roadshow
    • QMS & Standards
    • Statistical Methods
    • Resource Management
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • Regulated Industries
    • Research & Tech
    • Quality Improvement Tools
    • People Management
    • Metrology
    • Manufacturing
    • Roadshow
    • QMS & Standards
    • Statistical Methods
    • Supply Chain
    • Resource Management
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

Finding Common Ground for Measurement Disagreement

ASME B46.1-2019 for surface texture provides a starting point to help everyone agree on results

The ASME B46.1-2019 standard provides the building blocks for measuring and communicating surface texture. Image: “Reflection in black tiles.” Credit: annapolis_rose.

George Schuetz

Mahr Inc.

Tue, 10/01/2024 - 12:02
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

When we think about making a simple measurement, such as an outside diameter, many methods can be used. These would include calipers, micrometers, mechanical snap gauges, air snaps, CMMs, and special fixture gauges, just to mention a few.

ADVERTISEMENT

The problem with all these methods is that, while each is good in its own right, there may be a bias seen among them. Each method has some slight variations that can cause differences in results. It may be different gauging force, different process methods (such as the difference between contact and air gauging), or different measuring techniques, such as a CMM doing average diameters as opposed to a caliper using two-point measurements.

So, with all these techniques and potential pitfalls, how do you account for multiple measurements to be made by different personnel, in either the same or different locations, and then agree on the results? The bottom line is, you don’t. The only correct way is to determine an agreed-upon method for making the measurement and ensure that each location follows the same process.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password
Top Stories
All Whys Are Not The Same
AI May Be Making Your Quality Problem Worse
Flying Blind: What Your Quality Data Miss Every Shift
The 6 Best Quality Management Software Features That Simplify Your QMS
Momentum Technologies Achieves Record Purity Milestones for Rare Earths

Add new comment

Please login to comment.

© 2026 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us